Minutes:
Following a proposal by the Chairman, Members agreed to consider Item 9, followed by Item 8, prior to Item 6.
4. Speed Management in Kent
(Item 9 – Report by Head of Transportation and Development)
(1) A report was submitted to the Board on outlining the need to gain community ownership on the many requests for action on speed related issues that the County Council received.
(2) The County Council received approximately 30 requests per month per division, often from individual members of the public, requesting some form of traffic speed control. In trying to be helpful, the County Council committed a significant resource to researching the reasons behind most of those requests. In the vast majority of cases, perception was not reality. Equally, there were a number of examples of speed control measures, such as traffic calming, which were both inappropriate in scale and unpopular with some members of the local community. There was no doubt that work on dealing with individual requests diverted transportation teams from undertaking more strategic work which was important in the context of the challenges which faced Kent.
(3) It was important that the County Council used its resources to the best effect. The recent introduction of PIPKIN demonstrated that the County Council wished to base criteria for expenditure on highway and transport improvements scientifically and not according to the greatest pressure. Equally, the work being undertaken on Government Circular 1/2006 previously reported to the Board would audit speed limits on all A and B class roads in Kent by 2012.
(4) Kent County Council held a PIPKIN Seminar for Parish Councils in January 2008. At the Conference, Parishes received a copy of the ‘Understanding Speed Management in Kent’. A copy would be sent to all of those Parishes which were unable to send a representative to the seminar, and a copy of the text of the leaflet was set out in the Appendix to the report.
(5) In essence Kent residents were being asked to gain reasonable community support for any proposal relating to speed management. Once received, a data led approach would be used to determine the outcome as detailed in the Understanding Leaflet.
(6) During debate the Chairman referred to the draft Minutes of the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board of 21 January 2008. Following consideration of a report relating to Heavy Goods Vehicle Management – South and West of Maidstone, the JTB had requested that the Board recommend the funding of necessary surveys to establish the position with regard to heavy goods vehicles in Yalding and Farleigh. The request had not been received, and, therefore, was not included on this agenda.
(7) Following various comments and requests from Members, the Board:-
(a) agreed that a joint review with the police and relevant agencies be carried out into the increase in deaths on Maidstone roads, and a report submitted to the Maidstone JTB and this Board;
(b) agreed that a report be submitted to the Board’s meeting in May relating to the provision of 20mph zones in the vicinity of schools;
(c) agreed that the Heavy Goods Vehicle Management report referred to in paragraph (6) above be expanded and submitted to the Board’s meeting in May; and
(d) noted the report.